[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by mbyron

I have to agree with Dave: when the defense misplays, the fielder has to "disappear" or risk an obstruction call. F3's protection ended when he failed to glove the throw. I seem to recall this view in J/R (my copy has mysteriously vanished).

Don't confuse this play with the standard "train wreck" scenario. In the garden-variety train wreck, F3 CATCHES the high throw and comes down into a collision with the runner. We say "that's nothing," even though both sides want something called, because both players are doing what they are supposed to do: the fielder is fielding, and the runner is running to the base.

In the OP, the fielder was trying to field the ball, failing, and subsequently obstructing the runner. I'm not sure that I agree with the original rationale for the obstruction ("he belongs on 1B") -- depending on what happened on the overthrow, he might "belong" on 2B -- but I agree with the call.

It seems you have been inbibbing in the left-wing propaganda trough again!